Pages:
Author

Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 50. (Read 99910 times)

legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
February 17, 2016, 04:01:23 AM
The entire point of partitions is that not all full nodes are validating (verifying) all transactions.

Thus of course the full node that wins a block (in PoW, and analogously ditto in PoS or consensus-by-betting) is trusting the validators of other partitions to not lie to him.

If that full node had to validate every transaction in every partition, then there wouldn't be partitions any more. The entire reason to make partitions is because verification costs are too high when every full node has to verify every transaction. Partitions exist to aid scaling.

Can we be clear on what you mean by validation? Validating a transaction (i.e. checking it is protocol valid) has no PoW cost associated with it, any full node can do this. Therefore any full node can reject an invalid transaction before it gets propagated around the network.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 17, 2016, 03:53:01 AM
Tone Vays at his best! Watch that starting at about 32 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmNKd3w1k6Q

I don't understand this...   I don't understand that...   I don't understand the other...   Roll Eyes

Yes those guys made many errors or leaps of faith in their opinions.

One point they forgot to make is that it doesn't matter if Ethereum did their ICO under Swiss laws. The USA has securities law is that if you advertise and market securities to US investors, then you are culpable under US law no matter where in the world you are. They will come after you. KimDotCom will soon learn this that you can't run and you can't hide from the USA. Don't forget that Sweden was involved in trying to extradite Assange and probably turning him over to the USA. And Switzerland has been caving in to USA demands for turning over US citizens hiding wealth in Swiss banks.

And besides, Martin Armstrong has pointed out that the G20 will start sharing information and cooperating on enforcement as of 2017 (when the global economy will collapse in earnest and capital controls will be ramped up significantly).

Here is something related to FinCEN which is not the same as SEC regulation, but nevertheless the same principle applies of filtering out US residents/citizens:

You can avoid US customers, but it takes work

America

Plenty of businesses, some of my own clients included, have decided that the US market just isn’t for them.

They’ve either soured on the idea of servicing US clients altogether, or have decided to launch and wait it out in jurisdictions like Canada until the US sees regulatory reform.

This can be both profitable and practical, but simply incorporating the overseas market isn’t going to cut it.

The smart business will develop a set of policies and procedures reasonably calculated to keep US residents out. A competent attorney can help guide you through this process, and I can give some very basic principles here.

Quote
    Firstly, a pre-emptive response to a question I get asked weekly: geofiltering incoming IP addresses is only the beginning. The business itself should detect the jurisdiction of the customer’s IP address, display that address, and ask the customer to confirm that this is his or her jurisdiction.

Both customer and business can take affirmative steps: the customer can be required to click a button stating “I affirm that I am a resident of *country*,” and the business can require verifying documentation, like a passport or utility bill.

Several providers offer these kinds of onboarding services. Your business should develop a risk profile for each of its customers in real time setting forth the probability that the customer is a US resident.

The risk profile should take into account different factors like: (i) whether the customer registers a US bank account with your business, (ii) how many transfers to US bank accounts the customer requests (if you offer such a service), and (iii) how many times the customer accesses your service from within the US after setting up a new account.

The record shouldn't just show that your business followed its own policies, but that those policies worked. If push comes to shove, a judge and jury would probably like to see that, every once in a while, your procedures actually caught a US resident trying to use your service, and that you closed his or her account.

Finally, it should go without saying that your business should not advertise to US customers. This all might seem excessive for, or inapplicable to, your business and indeed it might be. The proper set of procedures will depend heavily upon the details of your business model and your degree of risk tolerance.

For some, even crafting and implementing these policies may be just as unappetising as compliance. There is, in fact, a way to service US customers and avoid these burdens.

Namely, you can become the agent of a Bank or Credit Union, as existing MSB Certified agents of banks, credit unions and money services businesses are typically exempt from registration and licensure requirements.

Functionally, becoming an agent means hiring an attorney to negotiate and execute an agreement with the bank, credit union or MSB (called the “principal”) setting forth your relative rights and obligations.

Btw, I should mention I was awake all night in a long chat with jl777 (i.e. the SuperNet) and he is working on decentralized exchange (and decentralized games such as poker) and I want to make sure those will interopt with the social network I am coding for the launch of my coin. That is your hint on how to find it. I won't be announcing it here.

I suggested to James that he support my "rainy day" suggestion for foiling jamming, by allowing users of the DE to choose a "Coin Days Destroyed". I asked him to see what TierNolan thinks of my idea. James is checking his atomic transfer protocol with TierNolan who wrote the BIP for decentralized exchange.

James is working on income models for the SuperNet, i.e. a very small fee on each DE trade.

James is not a GUI programmer (I am but I don't want to code game front-ends because I don't love playing games at my 50.7 age), so we are looking for GUI programmers who want to receive a % of the fees. We prefer these people be independent, i.e. neither of us want to manage employees.

I am very interested in doing the GUI programming for the social network.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 17, 2016, 03:25:54 AM
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
February 17, 2016, 03:24:27 AM
Following up on that bolded commitment quoted above, cross-partition transactions even with asset transfers (e.g. a crypto currency, not scriptable block chains) seems to destroy the Nash equilibrium also, because the cascade of derivative transactions infects across partitions, yet the validators did not validate all partitions (i.e. not all transactions).

I don't follow you. The network won't accept an invalid transaction, just as bitcoin doesn't accept an invalid block.


The way I understand it (and that might be defective) is that the other
partition has no way of validating the cross-partition tx.
If it could do that, ie. if there were an unified database, then there would not really be a partition.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
February 17, 2016, 03:20:13 AM
Following up on that bolded commitment quoted above, cross-partition transactions even with asset transfers (e.g. a crypto currency, not scriptable block chains) seems to destroy the Nash equilibrium also, because the cascade of derivative transactions infects across partitions, yet the validators did not validate all partitions (i.e. not all transactions).

I don't follow you. The network won't accept an invalid transaction, just as bitcoin doesn't accept an invalid block.
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
February 17, 2016, 02:08:07 AM

In my design, I have cross-partition transactions, but the way I accomplish this and maintain the Nash equilibrium is I entirely centralized verification, i.e. all transactions are validated by all centralized validators. This eliminates the problem that full nodes have unequal incomes but equal verification costs, thus ameliorates the economics that drives full nodes to become centralized. The centralized validators would still have the potential incentive to lie and short the coin. So the users in the system (hopefully millions of them) are constantly verifying a subsample of the transactions so that statistically a centralized validator is going to get caught fairly quickly, banned, and their hard won reputation entirely blown. Since these validations are done in a non-organized manner (i.e. they are randomly chosen by each node), then there is no viable concept of colluding to maintain a lie.


Regarding the last sentence, I take it that it refers to the extra validation
performed by the users? How do you ensure that the selection of the txs to be validated
is done randomly? And what incentives do the user nodes have to perform the extra validation at all?

Apologies if you have answered these somewhere else, then I'd be grateful
to receive a link.

It seems to me that you are using terms "validation" and "verification"
interchangeably in the above paragraph. (Or does verification refer to the extra
checking performed by the users?)
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 16, 2016, 07:00:49 PM
legendary
Activity: 2842
Merit: 1511
February 16, 2016, 06:24:51 PM
is Vitalik an order of magnitude smarter than Satoshi?


no, but his balls are an order of magnitude bigger

when you are thinking about dropping a million dollars of your hard earned cash into a crypto community, knowing that the lead developer has the huevos to show himself in public and stand behind his creation instead of hiding like a coward or criminal offers the potential investor a certain level of clarity that is devilishly absent from the bitcoin community.

I suppose that also makes Mark Twain a coward and like a criminal then.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 16, 2016, 05:32:24 PM
Since you say the POW for your coin won't be profitable for miners, what would be our motivation to participate in the decentralized side of things?

There won't be any miners in the traditional sense. Only payers of transactions, who must include a PoW share else their transaction will not be accepted on the block chain. They mine at a loss. Consider it a transaction fee. They have a Nash equilibrium incentive to make sure they mine on the longest chain so their transactions get included on the chain and also possibly a less than profitable block reward.

So yes this requires a good volume of transactions.

Yeah I want to kill mining. Sorry if any with mining equipment hate me for that. I'd be quite pleased if I could turn Bitcoin mining farms into warehouses of expensive doorstops.

If anything this thread has made me decide to go short (POW window only) vs long (POW&POS window) on ethereum, but not abandon it.

Yeah expect ETH to be pumped again with hype on the next upgrade. I tried my best to make it more difficult for them to hype the PoS(hit). But I assume they will invent some new technobabble (if they don't actually invent a true solution).

I tried to my best to force the price lower (by explaining the technological flaws) so they couldn't raise more funding, but perhaps I didn't succeed although I see the price plummeted to 0.01 BTC since I started posting today. When I called the double-top at 0.016, I was preparing to unleash this onslaught on their coin and marketcap. If you attribute the decline to me, then I guess I erased about $200+ million from their market cap. So that makes me feel like it wasn't a complete waste of my time.

But I didn't stretch the truth nor did I short ETH. I earned nothing on this except some satisfaction and perhaps some reputation (some haters too I am sure).
full member
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
February 16, 2016, 05:31:08 PM
Since you say the POW for your coin won't be profitable for miners, what would be our motivation to participate in the decentralized side of things?

People spend $50B a year on lotteries.

Perhaps the term lottery mining makes more sense than unprofitable mining?


Wouldn't that still encourage large scale miners to take part? The potential for a reward is the reason all big players are in the game. Just some games offer lower variance rewards than others. GPU mining from what I read isn't incredibly profitable, but there are still people/farms with 150+ GPUs still taking part.

Even if a lottery system was setup, wouldn't it still be worth large farms time to add just enough hashing power to trump other miners in an attempt to try and increase their chances of winning? And doesn't someone still have to control the lottery system that is used to reward miners? Maybe it's my lack of brain cells, but I don't see anything short of a centralized system that would provide incentives for small miners while discouraging large mining farms without some sort of human control.

And to your point, if people spend $50B a year on lotteries, why wouldn't a large scale miner spend the same said money on said lottery system?

Not trying to knock anything at all, I'm just trying to figure out what incentives a miner would have to mine/secure a network and not receive some sort of profit for it? The only way I see this working is the issuing authority and the mining/securing are all done under the same rough, or umbrella but spread out over the globe.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 16, 2016, 05:18:37 PM
Props to monsterer for facing the beast head on Smiley

I am sorry but his response demonstrates that he ostensibly didn't understand the point about modularity versus dependent typing, i.e. when programmability is also the objective. I feel no desire whatsoever to try to teach him and other readers who couldn't possibly understand some stuff about computer science that is I guess not comprehensible to mere mortals. I already tried to explain it a few times. I guess he can learn about the effects of I/O, modularity, dependent typing, Turing completeness, and the Halting Problem from other sources if he is so inclined.

His vision of having scripts do dependent typing means he didn't pay attention to what I wrote about dependent typing. Or he somehow thinks what he wrote doesn't mean dependent typing.

These issues have been worked on already by academics. He is apparently unaware of their findings. I don't know of just one single canonical comprehensive resource I could cite for him.

Any way, just forsake the partitioning and the issue is "resolved". Well read below...

We shall wait for the rebuttal.. hehe

My time isn't free and I have expended years foruming. So that is the extent of my rebuttal.

One observation I make myself is that TPTB first implied pretty strongly that whatever the issue was (outside my understanding) it was so fundamentally flawed it was unsolvable guaranteeing Ethereums fall. However, as I understand it atm it's more of a "the direction is wrong, maybe there is a solution, Ethereum should hire me to solve the problem"

I said:

* partitioning (of scriptable block chains) is flawed and is unsolvable.
* verification must be (or will be regardless) centralized in order to scale

I have not changed my position on that. Call that failure or not, depending on your expectations. In other words in the real world, I don't think it is that scalable unless they forsake decentralization. I have a idea about how to keep decentralization in face of those realities I allege.

If they wanted to expend some of their $millions on me, I might find it difficult to decline if the amount offered was high enough (given it would be guaranteed income). But I really have something more exciting to work on which if I am successful could generate potentially $billions not $millions, so not only do I not expect them to be interested in my assistance, but I doubt I would really be interested as well. Because for one reason is I think their company culture is too much on hype and that turns me off. The mcap is already $400m so I am surely not interested in holding ETH for appreciation (although they may be able to hype it to $billion or more on next upgrade regardless of whether the tech works in the real world or not). I mean I don't really believe in the project. I have no idea if programmable block chains will even be useful for anything real. Perhaps I could become convinced, but then I might just decide to make own programmable block chain instead starting from a $10,000 mcap is much more attractive than starting from a $400m marketcap. They seem to be highly disorganized and do they really produce a lot of code? I don't know. I would need to dig in and any way I am already working on something which I find interesting.

So I guess I just wrote a paragraph which basically says, "don't hire me".

I feel an apology here is warranted in case I am completely wrong with my assumption. Clearly TPTB is a bright guy and surprisingly very pleasant as evident by the video. Shocking but true Smiley

Thanks. Well I really am laid back but I guess I have a limited patience because a forum can consume all of my time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 356 days a year for 3 fucking years. I am trying to quit and it just goes on and on an on. I have programming I need to be doing. Not this.
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
February 16, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Tone Vays at his best! Watch that starting at about 32 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmNKd3w1k6Q

i wonder if first banks really embrace ETH and if fails then call the SEC for SCAM !

Anybody good in that game-theory -where is Nash equilibrium in that?

legendary
Activity: 990
Merit: 1108
February 16, 2016, 04:28:15 PM
Since you say the POW for your coin won't be profitable for miners, what would be our motivation to participate in the decentralized side of things?

People spend $50B a year on lotteries.

Perhaps the term lottery mining makes more sense than unprofitable mining?
full member
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
February 16, 2016, 04:10:15 PM
Good luck with that.  One of the things that made Bitcoin great is consensus via economics that's advantageous for the individual and the group.

Yeah it is absolutely great that China's mining bloc controls 65% of Bitcoin's hashrate and has vetoed any block size increase, including Classic's proposed mere doubling of the block size to 2MB only. Ostensibly they want to force transaction fees higher to fatten their profits. This is called an oligarchy and it is great for individuals like us, so we can pay through the nose to the oligarchy.

Thanks again for your incredible wisdom and including your sage proclamation that Szabo is a crypto god and was/is Satoshi.

Peachy has joined you in my very exclusive Ignore list, which I reserve for the wisest soothsayer salesmen.

Wow what a thread. I have one question TPTB and it's an honest question and not a veiled attempt at sarcasm.

Any miner I have had the pleasure of dealing with has to turn some sort of profit to justify at a minimum paying their electric bill. Since you say the POW for your coin won't be profitable for miners, what would be our motivation to participate in the decentralized side of things? I know there are hobby miners who mine because they believe in the tech and want to secure the network, but surely there can't be enough of those people willing to turn a negative profit to help secure your network can there? I'm willing to mine BTC and pay for the electrical use out of pocket, but only because I believe the value will be higher in the future.

You seem to have good ideas, but to a new person like me expecting miners to mine for no profit seems like an Achilles heel for everything you've said. Unless you expect the value of said coins to be just enough to cover electrical expenses and no higher, but that would take market manipulation wouldn't it to keep the price from going higher to keep from attracting "whales". Wouldn't that lead to centralization or create the need for centralized control over both aspects of the network? Centralization to verify and centralization to control the price/deter large investors etc

If anything this thread has made me decide to go short (POW window only) vs long (POW&POS window) on ethereum, but not abandon it.

I'll take my comments off the air lol...
member
Activity: 68
Merit: 10
February 16, 2016, 11:49:31 AM
Props to monsterer for facing the beast head on Smiley

We shall wait for the rebuttal.. hehe

Edit:

One observation I make myself is that TPTB first implied pretty strongly that whatever the issue was (outside my understanding) it was so fundamentally flawed it was unsolvable guaranteeing Ethereums fall. However, as I understand it atm it's more of a "the direction is wrong, maybe there is a solution, Ethereum should hire me to solve the problem"

I feel an apology here is warranted in case I am completely wrong with my assumption. Clearly TPTB is a bright guy and surprisingly very pleasant as evident by the video. Shocking but true Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
February 16, 2016, 11:01:55 AM
I think perhaps what you are proposing (yet you did not articulate it) is that you want every transaction to require that the input data is annotated to specify where that data appears on the block chain (i.e. which script output it is). But that means you are proposing to exclude "external I/O"; and I had already written upthread that yes if a design excludes external I/O then the problem is solved, but this means the programmability is mostly useless, e.g. no new accounts, etc..

I am suggesting that in many cases it is acceptable to allow external I/O, as long as the scripts which are built using external I/O are aware of each other and their sequencing requirements are met. Here is a trivial example:

External I/O source: a store of a single off-chain integer and script triggering mechanism
Script A: receives an integer as input, doubles it, returns it
Script B: receives an integer as input, halves it, returns it

*) The I/O source starts with the integer 1
*) It triggers script A
*) Waits until A appears in the chain, then triggers B with a dependency for the last observed A
*) Waits for B to appear and then re-triggers A with a dependency for the last observed B
*) Rinse and repeat.

What will the result be after 10 iterations?

Yes this example is trivial and simple, but it includes external I/O with dependencies exactly as I described.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 16, 2016, 10:41:29 AM
Good luck with that.  One of the things that made Bitcoin great is consensus via economics that's advantageous for the individual and the group.

Yeah it is absolutely great that China's mining bloc controls 65% of Bitcoin's hashrate and has vetoed any block size increase, including Classic's proposed mere doubling of the block size to 2MB only. Ostensibly they want to force transaction fees higher to fatten their profits. This is called an oligarchy and it is great for individuals like us, so we can pay through the nose to the oligarchy.

Thanks again for your incredible wisdom and including your sage proclamation that Szabo is a crypto god and was/is Satoshi.

Peachy has joined you in my very exclusive Ignore list, which I reserve for the wisest soothsayer salesmen.
full member
Activity: 179
Merit: 100
February 16, 2016, 10:29:14 AM
Being someone with first hand experience, and the technical knowledge to present challenges to TPTB's arguments when applicable, I can tell you its just too damn painful to do so.

No developer worth any salt is going to engage with him because it simply devolves into name calling if you don't align with his thoughts.  Before long the n00b, b-lister, you are not worthy comments start regardless of if he's right or not and its just a noisy waste of time.  I've seen the same towards people just trying to understand and not necessarily even disagreeing.

The discussion ends in a blaze of fire with one of the parties leaving, usually it's not TPTB that has departed (he can argue all damn day) so it "looks" from the outside that he won, even if in reality his "facts" are wrong.

Aaaand it begins.

TPTB:  Something to consider:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=32044.0

Smartest Guy in the Room syndrome is related to Dunning/Kruger Effect, and affects men and women equally.

The Smartest Guy in the Room is smart enough to know that he's smarter than most people, but not smart enough to recognize when other people are smarter. He defaults to the belief that because he is smarter than the majority of the population, he must be smarter than the people he's talking to, and tends to look no further or deeper than whatever initial assumption he has made or conclusion he has come to.

The Smartest Guy in the Room is recognizable for his tendency to dismiss other people's views without critically examining why, for glancing at a discussion, assuming other people are being foolish, and correcting them based on that assumption without actually checking the source material himself to understand what they are discussing, and for either digging in his heels and screeching, or for "refusing to argue because it's pointless" whenever anyone else presents difficult-to-refute information that contradicts his conclusion.

He actually can't learn, because he thinks he already knows, and that the rest of us simply aren't smart enough to see his enlightenment. The Smartest Guy in the Room has usually been through at least one, sometimes two jailbreaks, but then something critical happened; he stopped. Convinced that he had broken out of his cell, he latched onto whatever form of enlightenment helped him get there, failing to realize that enlightenment is a verb, not a noun. Clinging to the implements of his enlightenment, he also failed to notice that he is once again squatting in a cell almost identical to the one he believed he had left behind.

There is nothing that can be done with a Smartest Guy in the Room, as any attempt to convince him that he is missing out on a huge aspect of bipedal development will simply lead to him thinking that you don't understand his unique and highly sophisticated perspective. In that sense, the Smartest Guy in the Room is stuck in a state of arrested development, at approximately age fourteen.

He is a lost cause and cannot be rehabilitated.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 16, 2016, 10:14:31 AM
monsterer you are babbling nonsense. Sorry I am not going to unravel for you the entangled myopia you are weaving. The more I try to explain, the more deeply you will nest your misunderstanding. This is simply ridiculous that you are incapable of understanding freshmen level Computer Science.

Did you study at the university?

It's a shame that you are unable to explain yourself given a straightforward question and are forced to resort to childish insults.

I have already explained it. I was also cordial in hinting to you that you needed re-read my post and learn. Then you pushed it by saying my cordial hint was not civil. So I tried to explain it to you again. Now you've gone one step further by calling your Professor childish.

I think perhaps what you are proposing (yet you did not articulate it) is that you want every transaction to require that the input data is annotated to specify where that data appears on the block chain (i.e. which script output it is). But that means you are proposing to exclude "external I/O"; and I had already written upthread that yes if a design excludes external I/O then the problem is solved, but this means the programmability is mostly useless, e.g. no new accounts, etc..

Please monsterer think about what I have written. Please learn about type systems and what "dependently typed" means. Take some quiet time.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
February 16, 2016, 09:59:52 AM
monsterer you are babbling nonsense. Sorry I am not going to unravel for you the entangled myopia you are weaving. The more I try to explain, the more deeply you will nest your misunderstanding. This is simply ridiculous that you are incapable of understanding freshmen level Computer Science.

Did you study at the university?

It's a shame that you are unable to explain yourself given a straightforward question and are forced to resort to childish insults.
Pages:
Jump to: